> Please take note 343.
>
> 1. Remove the generic basic maps, and add maps made specifically for infection, use forgehub if you don’t have time 343.
Because of the amount of guest allowed, the basic maps are all we get, due to some technical issue, Im not versed in, merely aware of.
> 2. Give the zombies incentive to infect, half the lobby goes AFK, or rage quit when they get infected. Make it 5 points per infection, since most good players will get 5 kills before getting infected. This will make games faster and more frantic, the way zombies should be.
It would be cool to see some award tweeks for killing and infecting, dont know if 343 will take their time to do that, but I like the idea =D
> 3. Balance the infected. No one player should start infected 3 times in a row in a lobby of 12.
Four rounds with a guaranteed one round of alpha zombie for each person would solve that problem, I think.
> 1. Remove the generic basic maps, and add maps made specifically for infection, use forgehub if you don’t have time 343.
First, they would have to lower the playlist to 2 local max.
There’s no guarantee that a map will be suitable for Infection gameplay just because it’s on a given website. They need to be vetted and tested. Finding maps is easy; making sure they’re usable is the slow part.
> 2. Give the zombies incentive to infect, half the lobby goes AFK, or rage quit when they get infected. Make it 5 points per infection, since most good players will get 5 kills before getting infected. This will make games faster and more frantic, the way zombies should be.
Kill-based Infection scoring is broken anyway. Once the maps are fixed, the present scoring system should be shelved and replaced with something implemented with Megalo.
> 3. Balance the infected. No one player should start infected 3 times in a row in a lobby of 12.
Wouldn’t be an issue if the gameplay and scoring were both fair, as both sides would be fun to play then.
I agree that Living Dead needs work, but the solutions aren’t as simple as people claim they are.
> Balance the infected. No one player should start infected 3 times in a row in a lobby of 12.
> Wouldn’t be an issue if the gameplay and scoring were both fair, as both sides would be fun to play then.
A simple block on spawning as the alpha zombie after being alpha the previous round would suffice, at least then it’s 2 rounds max. A slight increase in zombie speed is a good temporary buff to zombies too.
> A simple block on spawning as the alpha zombie after being alpha the previous round would suffice, at least then it’s 2 rounds max. A slight increase in zombie speed is a good temporary buff to zombies too.
I’m not saying that limiting people to only being Alpha once is a bad idea; I’m just saying that it’s an indirect fix that only solves part of a much larger problem.
People complain about zombie selection because the game is unfair to Zombies; the maps favor Humans, and so does the scoring system. Fix these issues, and zombies become fair and fun to play, solving both balance complaints and team selection complaints – as opposed to limiting people to only being Alpha once, which solves the latter but does nothing to address the former.
I’m certainly open to throwing this small stone at one bird, but I think priority should be given to the larger stone that, when thrown, will kill two birds. :\
> Please take note 343.
>
> 1. Remove the generic basic maps, and add maps made specifically for infection, use forgehub if you don’t have time 343.
>
> 2. Give the zombies incentive to infect, half the lobby goes AFK, or rage quit when they get infected. Make it 5 points per infection, since most good players will get 5 kills before getting infected. This will make games faster and more frantic, the way zombies should be.
>
> 3. Balance the infected. No one player should start infected 3 times in a row in a lobby of 12.
Something that would make it better and even more scary… no radar. I mean for all the the things you could do to make an infection game, you would think no radar would be a no brainer. Although I’m happy with zombies the way it is now especially after they up’d the number of players months ago.
> > Please take note 343.
> >
> > 1. Remove the generic basic maps, and add maps made specifically for infection, use forgehub if you don’t have time 343.
> >
> > 2. Give the zombies incentive to infect, half the lobby goes AFK, or rage quit when they get infected. Make it 5 points per infection, since most good players will get 5 kills before getting infected. This will make games faster and more frantic, the way zombies should be.
> >
> > 3. Balance the infected. No one player should start infected 3 times in a row in a lobby of 12.
>
> Something that would make it better and even more scary… no radar. I mean for all the the things you could do to make an infection game, you would think no radar would be a no brainer. Although I’m happy with zombies the way it is now especially after they up’d the number of players months ago.
I agree, no radar would give it a much scarier feel, thanks.
> > 1. Remove the generic basic maps, and add maps made specifically for infection, use forgehub if you don’t have time 343.
>
> First, they would have to lower the playlist to 2 local max.
>
> There’s no guarantee that a map will be suitable for Infection gameplay just because it’s on a given website. They need to be vetted and tested. Finding maps is easy; making sure they’re usable is the slow part.
>
>
>
> > 2. Give the zombies incentive to infect, half the lobby goes AFK, or rage quit when they get infected. Make it 5 points per infection, since most good players will get 5 kills before getting infected. This will make games faster and more frantic, the way zombies should be.
>
> Kill-based Infection scoring is broken anyway. Once the maps are fixed, the present scoring system should be shelved and replaced with something implemented with Megalo.
>
>
>
> > 3. Balance the infected. No one player should start infected 3 times in a row in a lobby of 12.
>
> Wouldn’t be an issue if the gameplay and scoring were both fair, as both sides would be fun to play then.
>
> I agree that Living Dead needs work, but the solutions aren’t as simple as people claim they are.
Firstly "
> 1. Remove the generic basic maps, and add maps made specifically for infection, use forgehub if you don’t have time 343.
First, they would have to lower the playlist to 2 local max."
I disagree. It works fine on customs, And they already have altered forgeworld maps in matchmaking, yes I agree they would need to be tested but so did the new alteration maps “spooky base etc.”, they could even make a Beta playlist for trialing new maps.
Secondly "
> 3. Balance the infected. No one player should start infected 3 times in a row in a lobby of 12.
Wouldn’t be an issue if the gameplay and scoring were both fair, as both sides would be fun to play then."
As fun as it is to play both sides, No one wants to play the zombie 3 out of 3 matches and this is still an issue.
> I disagree. It works fine on customs, And they already have altered forgeworld maps in matchmaking, yes I agree they would need to be tested but so did the new alteration maps “spooky base etc.”, they could even make a Beta playlist for trialing new maps.
I’m not referring to balance issues, but instead to graphics issues. The more screens the game is rendering at once, the lower the threshold for both frame rate lag and – most critically – discoing is. These may sound like small issues, but they are not: I’ve seen maps that were so poorly built that even in single-screen, frame rate lag made it impossible to accurately hit a Zombie with a Shotgun; and discoing is also extremely distracting and disorienting to players.
It is extraordinarily difficult to make a map that works well in four-player split-screen. Cage, Asylum, and Pinnacle worked in four-way split because they are very minimalistic, and this had consequences for gameplay: they did not have enough cover or paths for Zombies, and they were fairly small.
These limits are evident even in the community-made variants, in fact. Bedlam has more cover, but those additions were only possible because the map is so small and simple. Much of the cover in Uncongealed is “opportunistic”: the author had to bend and break the existing bridges and railings, as adding pieces to Cage’s complex and large layout would have quickly caused graphics issues in four-way-split.
The more screens a Forger must support, the more gameplay and quality sacrifices they must make. With local max 2, fewer sacrifices need to be made and maps have more potential.
> As fun as it is to play both sides, No one wants to play the zombie 3 out of 3 matches and this is still an issue.
I understand that viewpoint. I’m not against adding a fairness factor to the team selection; I support such a change, because I do want Infection to be as good as it can be. I merely think that there are larger and more urgent concerns that 343i should focus on first.
> > I disagree. It works fine on customs, And they already have altered forgeworld maps in matchmaking, yes I agree they would need to be tested but so did the new alteration maps “spooky base etc.”, they could even make a Beta playlist for trialing new maps.
>
> I’m not referring to balance issues, but instead to graphics issues. The more screens the game is rendering at once, the lower the threshold for both frame rate lag and – most critically – discoing is. These may sound like small issues, but they are not: I’ve seen maps that were so poorly built that even in single-screen, frame rate lag made it impossible to accurately hit a Zombie with a Shotgun; and discoing is also extremely distracting and disorienting to players.
>
> It is extraordinarily difficult to make a map that works well in four-player split-screen. Cage, Asylum, and Pinnacle worked in four-way split because they are very minimalistic, and this had consequences for gameplay: they did not have enough cover or paths for Zombies, and they were fairly small.
>
> These limits are evident even in the community-made variants, in fact. Bedlam has more cover, but those additions were only possible because the map is so small and simple. Much of the cover in Uncongealed is “opportunistic”: the author had to bend and break the existing bridges and railings, as adding pieces to Cage’s complex and large layout would have quickly caused graphics issues in four-way-split.
>
> The more screens a Forger must support, the more gameplay and quality sacrifices they must make. With local max 2, fewer sacrifices need to be made and maps have more potential.
>
>
>
> > As fun as it is to play both sides, No one wants to play the zombie 3 out of 3 matches and this is still an issue.
>
> I understand that viewpoint. I’m not against adding a fairness factor to the team selection; I support such a change, because I do want Infection to be as good as it can be. I merely think that there are larger and more urgent concerns that 343i should focus on first.
“I’m not referring to balance issues, but instead to graphics issues.” As i said, I have personally tried these with 4 players per console in system link games with 10 people. 4 consoles, I had 4 players on my console, no frame rate issue. The other three consoles had 2 players. As i said, yeah it will need testing but I personally found no problems. Something you will find however, when 4 player splitscreen is in effect the graphics engine lowers the line of sight, and removes some detail from the map to counter frame rate issues, if you have played 4 player you would have experienced this. Don’t try and shoot me down without any sort of proof, I happen to be an experienced forger too, and I know you quite well, you used to be on my old GT until you fought with one of my friends.
> - sort the bulltrue glitch out
> - up the player cap to 13 like in halo 3
> - new maps
> - new gametypes like save one bullet, creeping death etc
> - fix the amount of times someone is a alpha zombie in one game
> - remove zoom from pistol to stop sniping zombies from across the map
> - if i commit suicide as a human because some noob pummeled me off a ledge i do not want to become a zombie
> - i dont want to accidently roll off the cage and lose the hard earned kill ive spent 10 deaths getting
The bulltrue glitch is made up of a number of things: but is mainly a fault of the new physics engine, not an easy fix.
Upping the player cap by one person doesn’t seem to be an issue to me.
I agree on new maps.
New gametypes, maybe, but it might fit better in a different playlist.
“remove zoom from pistol to stop sniping zombies from across the map” - The issue here is the wide open maps not the pistol.
“if i commit suicide as a human because some noob pummeled me off a ledge i do not want to become a zombie” - Sorry but that’s not something the reach engine can fix.
“i dont want to accidently roll off the cage and lose the hard earned kill ive spent 10 deaths getting” - map issue/ skill issue.